• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The AWFUL TRUTH about Michael Moore!

Skeptic

Banned
Joined
Jul 25, 2001
Messages
18,312
Find out THE TRUTH about Michael Moore!

http://thbookservice.com/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6494

OK, so no, I haven't read that book. And, no, I doubt it's entirely accurate and fair (duh). It seems to be full of innuendo, unproved rumors, and personal attacks, to judge from the synopsis.

OK, so I lied. It probably isn't exactly the "awful truth" after all.

But... since that is precisely Moore's own method for HIS targets, turnaround is fair play.

If you think the portrait of Moore in this book is inaccurate and vicious... which it probably is... wouldn't you also say Moore's own "targets" are possibly not as bad as he makes them seem???
 
Skeptic said:
But... since that is precisely Moore's own method for HIS targets, turnaround is fair play.

I was reading you until I got to this part. Surely an accurate exposé would be of more use than resorting to those sort of tactics?
 
Re: Re: The AWFUL TRUTH about Michael Moore!

Ian Osborne said:


I was reading you until I got to this part. Surely an accurate exposé would be of more use than resorting to those sort of tactics?

Tony posted a link to Hitchens' retort to Moore's film, response was personal attacks against Hithens. How does one conduct and expose when every critique is shot down based on who they are and not based on fact.
 
Re: Re: Re: The AWFUL TRUTH about Michael Moore!

Grammatron said:


Tony posted a link to Hitchens' retort to Moore's film, response was personal attacks against Hithens. How does one conduct and expose when every critique is shot down based on who they are and not based on fact.

Because it's really hard to talk about the facts when the film only came out today?
I may see it on Sunday. After that, I'd be willing to defend what I think Moore did right.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: The AWFUL TRUTH about Michael Moore!

Nasarius said:


Because it's really hard to talk about the facts when the film only came out today?
I may see it on Sunday. After that, I'd be willing to defend what I think Moore did right.

Are you being sarcastic in your last sentence?
 
The means Moore uses on other people is one that can easily be turned on him (or anyone). And he's been doing it for a long time so I'm surprised someone hasn't done it already. But people are starting to do it and in addition to that book is the movie Michael Moore Hates America that will be coming out soon. I will make two predictions about it.

1. Michael Moore will look foolish in it.
2. It will be as factually accurate as Moore's films.

And I think the take home message will not necessarily be that Michael Moore is foolish, but rather that that medium he uses can be used to make anything or anyone look foolish and therefore you should take such films only as entertainment rather than as informative.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The AWFUL TRUTH about Michael Moore!

Grammatron said:


Are you being sarcastic in your last sentence?

No...
I'm sure he did some things right. If those things are attacked, I might defend him.
I'm equally sure he did a lot wrong. In that case, I'll ignore it or join in the criticism. I'm no fan of Moore.
 
By the way, here's an example of why I don't trust the reviews of the film:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5296236/

Moore's movie begins by pitching his conspiracy theory about the 2000 election. We're all told in the audience by all recounting methods Al Gore won Florida. That drew a big gasp from the crowd. But, shockingly, this first fact cited by Moore's movie is a lie. Didn't anybody associated with Miramax or Michael Moore's movie read newspapers after the election, when some of America's most liberal papers published results from their independent review of Florida's ballots, concluding it was George W. Bush who won by all recounting methods?

We just had a thread about this. We established that:
1. If only the counties that Gore wanted recounted were recounted, Bush would have won.
2. If all the counties in Florida were recounted, Gore would have won (by any method).

So in fact, this accusation would be a lie.

And that's why I'm going to see it myself before forming any opinions on it :)
 
Nasarius said:
By the way, here's an example of why I don't trust the reviews of the film:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5296236/



We just had a thread about this. We established that:
1. If only the counties that Gore wanted recounted were recounted, Bush would have won.
2. If all the counties in Florida were recounted, Gore would have won (by any method).

So in fact, this accusation would be a lie.

And that's why I'm going to see it myself before forming any opinions on it :)

I don't remember establishing that, what I remember is we established that it was a statistical tie in that neither can be claimed a winner.
 
Re: Re: Re: The AWFUL TRUTH about Michael Moore!

Grammatron said:


Tony posted a link to Hitchens' retort to Moore's film, response was personal attacks against Hithens. How does one conduct and expose when every critique is shot down based on who they are and not based on fact.

The funny part is, people pull out George Will columns everytime he is critical of a republican. People don't call him out of a touch, nuts, a sellout, a non-critical thinker, etc etc for it. Hitchens gives F911 some critical comments and you see how these people treat their own who think independently of the herd.

These same people will trot our George Will when blaming Reagan wholly for the that era's deficits.
 
Grammatron said:


I don't remember establishing that, what I remember is we established that it was a statistical tie in that neither can be claimed a winner.

You're quite correct. Unfortunately, our stupid election laws don't care. If a full recount was allowed, Gore would legally be President, just as Bush is legally President now even though he won by only a few hundred votes. Those are the results of the "independent review" that Scarborough mentions and lies about.
 
1. Michael Moore will look foolish in it.
2. It will be as factually accurate as Moore's films.

Bravo. Well said.
 
UncleSon said:
1. Michael Moore will look foolish in it.
2. It will be as factually accurate as Moore's films.

Bravo. Well said.

1. Moore didn't use any CGI to manipulate the footage of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. They did a great job of looking foolish on their own.

2. While I will agree that he may use editing and images in his films on occasion to stretch the truth a bit or overstate his case, the historical facts he presents do check out. He likes to put on a good show with funny scenes and people can nitpick things here and there but I have not seen any legitimate attacks on the facts he cites to support his principal messages.

Another great film from Michael Moore. Keep up the good work.
 
I guess I'm just a boring centrist politically, I have equal amounts of dislike for Bush and Moore. The former is a liar, cheater, and thief (or at the least, a mindless puppet of the Halliburton / Cheney axis), while the latter is just a self-absorbed nincompoop.

So what if he's a good filmmaker? So is Steven Spielberg, and Oliver North. Spielberg's a UFO woo-woo type, and Oliver North never met a conspiracy theory he couldn't magnify beyond most unreasonable expectations. Artistic talent is just that, it doesn't give anyone a greater perspective on what's real and what isn't, it simply means they're better at expressing what they believe than most of us.

Michael Moore is very popular in Europe right now, and I have an admittedly unscientific and emotional feeling why that is: He's fat, uncouth, poorly dressed, and a loudmouth -- in other words, he's the perfect stereotype of how contemporary Europeans want to see Americans these days, the Super-sized idiot from across the pond, who has but one redeeming feature: He hates Bush.

Well, I don't like Bush very much myself, but I despise stereotypes even more. I care about how Europe sees America. I think we need each other to survive the 21st century intact. And clowns like Moore do almost as much harm as the unilateral politics of the Bush regime. They both reduce the complicated issues facing the western world today (and the world at large, by extension) to a contest of sound bites. It's degrading, and unhelpful. We need serious dialogue, not video cartoons.

Michael Moore / George W Bush is the Jerry Lewis syndrome in 21st century clothing.

I'm an American. I love my country. I get angry when people who are old enough and smart enough to know better make us all look ridiculous with their schoolyard name-calling.
 
"Michael Moore is very popular in Europe right now, and I have an admittedly unscientific and emotional feeling why that is:He's fat, uncouth, poorly dressed, and a loudmouth -- in other words, he's the perfect stereotype of how contemporary Europeans want to see Americans these days, the Super-sized idiot from across the pond, who has but one redeeming feature: He hates Bush."

UncleSun


"Nevertheless it is the "icing on the cake" in one sense: for many Europeans, the American is a caricature of somoene who is fat, over-ambitious, has a simplistic world view, believes in conspiracy theories, is self-centered, self-important, hypocritical, and fanatical."

Skeptic


"But speaking here in my capacity as a polished, sophisticated European as well, it seems to me the laugh here is on the polished, sophisticated Europeans. They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on."

Hitchens

Popular theory, that one.
 
The three day's growth of beard thing kinda works for Yassir Arafat, but it doesn't do anything for Michael Moore.

Either shave or grow a beard, Mike! :p
 
I doubt Michael Moore is as concerned with what people believe about his own actions/tactics as Bush & Co. are.

So what if people prefer to ignore the message on concentrate on attacking the messenger??


Anyone with half a brain expects 'artistic license' when they see a movie but they DO (rightly) expect their government to be above reproach.
 
UncleSon said:
Michael Moore is very popular in Europe right now, and I have an admittedly unscientific and emotional feeling why that is: He's fat, uncouth, poorly dressed, and a loudmouth -- in other words, he's the perfect stereotype of how contemporary Europeans want to see Americans these days, the Super-sized idiot from across the pond, who has but one redeeming feature: He hates Bush.


Errr No. As far as the British are concerned and I speak for each and everyone of them, we don’t tend to judge people by their appearances. If we had a craving for fat uncouth, poorly dressed, {insert own ad hominem here} American loudmouths we would have many more of them in our media.

Has it ever entered your head that perhaps it is the content that Moore comes up with that we like and his popularity is nothing to do with physical appearance. In fact if you look at the people who grace our T.V’s and films I would say that would be far more accurate to say that despite his appearances he is popular. And you need to think why that might be so that rather than try to attack him you attack his message, if that is what you want to do.

The reason we like Moore is that he takes a cynical, satirical and humorous look at authority, This appeals to us Brits. We want to be amused. We want someone telling us what we ‘know ‘ (that all politicians and people in power are crooks). We have had a lot of it here. We have had comedians (Ben Elton), TV Programmes (Spitting Image) and magazines (Private Eye) all telling us about the corruption and personal interests infecting politics. We have has the tabloid exposes of philandering MPs, and we like that because we then know where we are with politicians and government. We are one up on them, we know that they are all power crazed liars.

With America it is different. We don’t get the same criticisms of American politics and politicians. Yet with America starting to dictate to the world it is becoming the new world government and we need to know where we are with them what drives them. We need to know that American politicians are as corrupt as our own.

Moore tells us. While they give the impression of being altruistic superheros, he tells us that those in authority in America are just like those here. And he uses a powerful weapon in telling us Irony. Irony is something we are told Americans don’t understand, it is something that we in Britain love. Moore has a very British sense of humour, and he entertains us.(We see a lot of the criticisms of Moore as criticisms of Irony, and in turn see that as criticisms of ourselves.

We get the backlash against Moore reported and we don’t understand it. What are those critics saying ‘That there is no corruption in America ?’ ‘That no innocent person has ever been killed by a legally held weapon in America ?’ Moore tells us some of the truth. Not all the truth but some of it is true. That is how irony works. You don’t get the full picture, just enough to amuse?

Just because you don’t like the message there is no need to try to suppress it. We hear the message and move on, it is only telling us what we already know. There is no point having a go at Moore, when there is a clear market for his message and his style. Moore as an individual is not a news story here. There is no point slagging him off. If you dislike Moore (or more specifically, his message) then you need to tell us what your message is, What point of view are you trying to get across, but when you tell us try to be funny, entertain us or we won’t listen.
 
Lothian said:



Errr No. As far as the British are concerned and I speak for each and everyone of them, we don’t tend to judge people by their appearances. If we had a craving for fat uncouth, poorly dressed, {insert own ad hominem here} American loudmouths we would have many more of them in our media.

Has it ever entered your head that perhaps it is the content that Moore comes up with that we like and his popularity is nothing to do with physical appearance. In fact if you look at the people who grace our T.V’s and films I would say that would be far more accurate to say that despite his appearances he is popular. And you need to think why that might be so that rather than try to attack him you attack his message, if that is what you want to do.

The reason we like Moore is that he takes a cynical, satirical and humorous look at authority, This appeals to us Brits. We want to be amused. We want someone telling us what we ‘know ‘ (that all politicians and people in power are crooks). We have had a lot of it here. We have had comedians (Ben Elton), TV Programmes (Spitting Image) and magazines (Private Eye) all telling us about the corruption and personal interests infecting politics. We have has the tabloid exposes of philandering MPs, and we like that because we then know where we are with politicians and government. We are one up on them, we know that they are all power crazed liars.

With America it is different. We don’t get the same criticisms of American politics and politicians. Yet with America starting to dictate to the world it is becoming the new world government and we need to know where we are with them what drives them. We need to know that American politicians are as corrupt as our own.

Moore tells us. While they give the impression of being altruistic superheros, he tells us that those in authority in America are just like those here. And he uses a powerful weapon in telling us Irony. Irony is something we are told Americans don’t understand, it is something that we in Britain love. Moore has a very British sense of humour, and he entertains us.(We see a lot of the criticisms of Moore as criticisms of Irony, and in turn see that as criticisms of ourselves.

We get the backlash against Moore reported and we don’t understand it. What are those critics saying ‘That there is no corruption in America ?’ ‘That no innocent person has ever been killed by a legally held weapon in America ?’ Moore tells us some of the truth. Not all the truth but some of it is true. That is how irony works. You don’t get the full picture, just enough to amuse?

Just because you don’t like the message there is no need to try to suppress it. We hear the message and move on, it is only telling us what we already know. There is no point having a go at Moore, when there is a clear market for his message and his style. Moore as an individual is not a news story here. There is no point slagging him off. If you dislike Moore (or more specifically, his message) then you need to tell us what your message is, What point of view are you trying to get across, but when you tell us try to be funny, entertain us or we won’t listen.

Quiet, you polished, sophisticated European, you!

;)
 
Grammatron said:


I don't remember establishing that, what I remember is we established that it was a statistical tie in that neither can be claimed a winner.

Except Gore conceded, no?
 

Back
Top Bottom